Section 4: Accountability, Support, and … Section 4: Accountability, Support, and Improvement for...
Transcript of Section 4: Accountability, Support, and … Section 4: Accountability, Support, and Improvement for...
32
Section 4: Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools Instructions: Each SEA must describe its accountability, support, and improvement system consistent with
34 C.F.R. §§ 200.12-200.24 and section 1111(c) and (d) of the ESEA. Each SEA may include
documentation (e.g., technical reports or supporting evidence) that demonstrates compliance with
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
4.1 Accountability System.
A. Indicators. Describe the measure(s) included in each of the Academic Achievement, Academic
Progress, Graduation Rate, Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency, and School
Quality or Student Success indicators and how those measures meet the requirements described in
34 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)-(b) and section 1111(c)(4)(B) of the ESEA.
i. The description for each indicator should include how it is valid, reliable, and comparable
across all LEAs in the State, as described in 34 C.F.R. § 200.14(c).
ii. To meet the requirements described in 34 C.F.R.§ 200.14(d), for the measures included
within the indicators of Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success
measures, the description must also address how each measure within the indicators is
supported by research that high performance or improvement on such measure is likely to
increase student learning (e.g., grade point average, credit accumulation, performance in
advanced coursework).
iii. For measures within indicators of School Quality or Student Success that are unique to
high school, the description must address how research shows that high performance or
improvement on the indicator is likely to increase graduation rates, postsecondary
enrollment, persistence, completion, or career readiness.
iv. To meet the requirement in 34 C.F.R. § 200.14(e), the descriptions for the Academic
Progress and School Quality or Student Success indicators must include a demonstration
of how each measure aids in the meaningful differentiation of schools under 34 C.F.R. §
200.18 by demonstrating varied results across schools in the State.
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Questions
A.4.iv.a. Academic Achievement Indicator. Describe the Academic Achievement indicator,
including a description of how the indicator (i) is based on the long-term goals; (ii) is
measured by proficiency on the annual Statewide reading/language arts and mathematics
assessments; (iii) annually measures academic achievement for all students and
separately for each subgroup of students; and (iv) at the State’s discretion, for each public
high school in the State, includes a measure of student growth, as measured by the annual
Statewide reading/language arts and mathematics assessments.
A.4.iv.b. Indicator for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools that are Not High Schools
(Other Academic Indicator). Describe the Other Academic indicator, including how it
annually measures the performance for all students and separately for each subgroup of
students. If the Other Academic indicator is not a measure of student growth, the
description must include a demonstration that the indicator is a valid and reliable
statewide academic indicator that allows for meaningful differentiation in school
performance.
A.4.iv.c. Describe the Graduation Rate indicator, including a description of (i) how the
indicator is based on the long-term goals; (ii) how the indicator annually measures
graduation rate for all students and separately for each subgroup of students; (iii) how the
indicator is based on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; (iv) if the State, at its
discretion, also includes one or more extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates, how
the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate is combined with that rate or rates within the
33
indicator; and (v) if applicable, how the State includes in its four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate and any extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities assessed using an alternate assessment aligned to
alternate academic achievement standards under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(D) and
awarded a State-defined alternate diploma under ESEA section 8101(23) and (25).
A.4.iv.d. Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency (ELP) Indicator. Describe the
Progress in Achieving ELP indicator, including the State’s definition of ELP, as
measured by the State ELP assessment.
A.4.iv.e. School Quality or Student Success Indicator(s). Describe each School Quality or
Student Success Indicator, including, for each such indicator: (i) how it allows for
meaningful differentiation in school performance; (ii) that it is valid, reliable,
comparable, and statewide (for the grade span(s) to which it applies); and (iii) of how
each such indicator annually measures performance for all students and separately for
each subgroup of students. For any School Quality or Student Success indicator that does
not apply to all grade spans, the description must include the grade spans to which it does
apply.
The DDOE is well positioned to meet the requirements described in 34 C.F.R. § 200.14(a)-(b)
and section 1111(c)(4)(B) of ESSA because our existing accountability system incorporates many
of the multiple measures required under the new law. Given the new opportunity under ESSA to
revisit and refine the existing measures, DDOE elicited feedback from a wide variety of
stakeholders over the past several months.
The DDOE has included multiple measures in our accountability system since 2014-2015. The
ESEA Flexibility Waiver catalyzed the creation of an accountability system framework anchored
around academic achievement, growth, on track to graduation, and college and career preparation.
Through early implementation, DDOE learned that a multiple measures accountability system
provides a more comprehensive picture of school quality and performance. Stakeholder feedback
for the ESSA state plan indicated that while many of the existing metrics are appropriate and
meet ESSA statutory requirements, the DDOE should consider additional metrics based on
DDOE and the broader education community priorities and values. Stakeholders expressed
interest in adding a range of indicators to have a more complete and robust picture of schools.
The metrics illustrated in the graphic below will be included in the accountability system
beginning with the 2017-2018 school year. Decisions on which metrics to include in the
accountability system were based on LEA and DDOE data experts’ review of each metric’s
validity and reliability as a measure of student learning and/or school quality.
Please note that growth from the PSAT 10 to the SAT will not be included in 2017-2018. A
thorough review of resources and a review of technical quality are needed before the PSAT can
be included in a statewide accountability system.
Other metrics will be reported (but not included in accountability ratings) to provide parents and
community members a more complete picture of school performance. These metrics are included
in the last table after the graphic.
34
The following graphic shows the proposed indicators and metrics for the Delaware School
Success Framework (DSSF) beginning in school year 2017-2018 based on feedback, and it builds
on the DSSF as developed in 2014-2015.
The following measures are included in the DSSF calculation.
35
Indicator Measure(s) Description
i. Academic
Achievement
Proficiency in ELA (3-8, HS)
Proficiency in Mathematics (3-
8, HS)
Proficiency in Science (5, 8,
and 10)
Proficiency in Social Studies
(4, 7, and HS)
The Academic Achievement metric area measures
student performance in relation to grade-level
expectations. This area currently includes student
performance data on statewide assessments
(Smarter Assessments, SAT, and DCAS) in four
content areas: ELA, mathematics, science, and
social studies.
This indicator measures student performance in
relation to grade-level expectations as assessed
annually by our statewide annual, summative
assessments (Smarter Assessments in grades 3-8,
SAT at grade 11, and DCAS for grades assessed for
science and social studies). The state’s long-term
goals include proficiency goals for ELA and
mathematics. Results will be calculated and
reported annually for the All Students subgroup as
well as disaggregated for each major subgroup,
including SWD, EL, low-SES, and each racial
subgroup of students. See Academic Progress
description for information on high school growth.
Feedback from stakeholder groups such as
Teachers of the Year Advisory Council, Teaching
and Learning Cadre, PTA, Delaware State
Education Association (DSEA), and community
members indicated that these metrics should
continue to be included.
DDOE will include these metrics in the
accountability system.
ii. Academic
Progress
Growth in ELA (4-8 and HS)
Growth in Mathematics (4-8
and HS)
Growth to Proficiency (4-8)
Growth of Lowest Quartile (4-8
and HS)
Growth of Highest Quartile (4-
8 and HS)
Growth metrics measure how well schools are
improving student learning over time and are
measured by statewide assessments (Smarter
Assessments and SAT). Growth metrics assist with
meaningful differentiation by distinguishing
between schools with similar proficiency rates.
This indicator measures student-level growth in
relation to grade-level expectations as assessed
annually by our statewide annual, summative
assessments (Smarter Assessments in grades 3-8,
SAT at grade 11). Results will be calculated and
reported annually for the All Students subgroup as
well as disaggregated for each major subgroup,
including SWD, EL, low-SES, and each racial
subgroup of students in the state.
Feedback from surveys, community discussions,
and various stakeholder groups indicated that
growth should be a significant factor in the
accountability system. Moreover, stakeholder
36
Indicator Measure(s) Description
feedback indicated that DDOE should include a
Growth-to-Proficiency metric as well as growth of
both lowest and highest quartiles to better identify
achievement gaps as well as include growth of our
highest performing students.
Stakeholders also strongly supported requiring
statewide administration of the PSAT to provide a
more valid, reliable, and comparable growth
measure.
Feedback from a wide variety of stakeholder
groups also indicated a strong desire to have a more
transparent method for measuring growth at the
student level.
In response to stakeholder feedback, the DDOE
will continue to measure student growth for
elementary, middle, and high schools, and we are
investigating costs and effective processes needed
to include the PSAT in its growth calculations at
the high school level.
The DDOE will revisit its current school-level
aggregate growth methodology, which currently
cannot be replicated by LEA staff, and is exploring
a growth-to-target approach that provides
transparency, reports student-level data, and can be
replicated by educators at the school level.
On Track for Graduation in 9th
Grade (HS only)
This high school metric is the percentage of 9th
grade students earning a total of four or more
combined credits in at least four of the following
subjects: ELA, mathematics, science, social studies,
and/or world languages.
iii. School Quality
or Student Success
Chronic Absenteeism (K-12) The U.S. Department of Education’s definition of
chronic absenteeism is the unduplicated number of
students absent 10% or more school days during the
school year.
Feedback from stakeholders, such as DSEA,
discussion groups, and the Governor’s Advisory
Committee, strongly recommended that the
attendance measure be replaced with chronic
absenteeism.
37
Indicator Measure(s) Description
Research shows that chronic absenteeism is
strongly correlated with low performance and low
persistence.
Whereas most schools show very similar
attendance rates, a measure of the percentage of
students who are chronically absent, and therefore
not present to learn, provides for meaningful
differentiation among all schools. Results will be
calculated and reported annually for the All
Students subgroup as well as disaggregated for
each major subgroup, including SWD, EL, low-
SES, and each racial subgroup of students in the
state. School performance in this metric area of the
School Quality or Student Success Indicator will
contribute to the school’s rating for this indicator as
well as to the school’s overall rating.
Based on stakeholder feedback and supporting
research, the DDOE will include the chronic
absenteeism metric.
College and Career
Preparedness (9-12)
Students who demonstrate early success in college
and career preparation opportunities have an
increased likelihood of entry and success in
education and career training after high school.
College and career preparation is determined by
calculating the percent of students who have
demonstrated successful preparation for education
and career training after high school through
advanced coursework and technical skills
attainment.
Results will be calculated and reported annually for
the All Students subgroup as well as disaggregated
for each major subgroup, including SWD, EL, low-
SES, and each racial subgroup of students in the
state. School performance in this metric area of the
School Quality or Student Success Indicator will
contribute to the school’s rating for this indicator as
well as to the school’s overall rating.
Feedback from the Governor’s Advisory
Committee, community conversations, the
Delaware School Boards Association, and surveys
indicate a desire to include additional college and
career preparation options within this metric.
Based on the feedback received, the DDOE will
include the following options in this metric:
College and Career Preparedness Option:
One college and one career preparedness option
(listed above)
38
Indicator Measure(s) Description
College Preparedness Options:
AP (3 or better)
IB (4 or better)
Postsecondary credit attainment with a B or higher
outside of a state-approved program of study
SAT College- and Career-Readiness Benchmarks
(ELA, mathematics, and writing)
Career Preparedness Options:
DDOE-approved industry credential
Certificate of Multiliteracy
Postsecondary credit attainment with a B or higher
within a state-approved program of study
Successful completion of an approved co-operative
education and/or work-based learning extension
Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery
(ASVAB) General Technical (GT) score of 70+
iv. Graduation
Rate (HS only)
Four-Year Adjusted Cohort
Graduation Rate
Five-Year Adjusted Cohort
Graduation Rate
Six-Year Adjusted Cohort
Graduation Rate
Delaware’s long-term goals for the four-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate, as well as the
extended year cohort graduation rates, represent
statewide expectations to increase the number of
students graduating from high school. School-level
and subgroup results will be compared against
state-level long-term goals on an annual basis to
determine progress. Adjusted cohort graduation
rates are calculated based on the number of students
who earned a regular high school diploma divided
by the total number of students in the cohort,
accounting for students who are considered
dropouts and transfers. Extended graduation rates
of five and six years are included in the current
DSSF to recognize that some students, including
those with extended graduation rate individualized
education plans (IEPs), need additional time to
graduate.
Feedback from multiple stakeholders, such as the
Measures of School Success and Reporting
discussion group, the Delaware State PTA,
community surveys, and the Teachers of the Year
Advisory Council, indicated that the four-, five-,
and six-year adjusted cohort graduation rates
should continue to be used.
The DDOE will continue this approach.
39
Indicator Measure(s) Description
v. Progress in
Achieving English
Language
Proficiency
WIDA ACCESS 2.0 for ELs
(1-12)
The DDOE has developed a growth-to-target
model—please refer to Section 1 for details. The
measure will be based on the annual WIDA
ACCESS 2.0 Assessment for EL Composite Scale
Score.
Through assistance with WIDA researchers,
technical assistance from CCSSO, and an analysis
of Delaware EL success on the state ELA content
assessments, the DDOE has determined that a
student’s exit target, or AT, will be defined as a 5.0
composite PL on the ACCESS for ELs 2.0
assessment. Starting with the 2016-2017
assessment cycle, the DDOE will define increases
in the percentage of all current ELs making
progress in ELP as ELs that meet the ELP cut SS
within the established timeframe consistent with a
student’s baseline PL. Thus, the state will consider
a student’s PL on the first annual ACCESS for ELs
2.0 assessment to determine the number of years
that a student has to reach proficiency, then set
targets for interim progress based on entering
grade-level SS accordingly. Under this model,
students achieving a PL of 5.0 or higher on their
initial ACCESS assessment (Year 1) have met their
growth target. The maximum number of years that
students have to attain proficiency is six years.
This decision is a result of significant stakeholder
input, including ESL coordinators, the Governor’s
Advisory Committee, and on empirical research in
language acquisition.
The following measures will be reported only and will not be included in the DSSF calculation.
Measure(s) Description
Suspensions/Expulsions (K-12) The DDOE currently defines this metric as the number of suspensions
and expulsions in each school with comparisons to district rates and
state rates.
Feedback from a variety of stakeholders indicates that reporting on
the percentage of suspensions and expulsions in a school helps to
provide a picture of the school’s climate and level of student
engagement. Stakeholders also expressed concerns that inclusion of
this metric in a school’s rating could incentivize schools to
underreport infractions. This measure will be reported only.
Student/Teacher/Parent Survey
(K-12)
Feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders, such as discussion
groups, DSEA, and community surveys, indicates that student,
teacher, and parent engagement surveys provide a comprehensive
picture of school climate and should be included in the accountability
40
Measure(s) Description
system. Conversely, stakeholder feedback also voiced that surveys
could be “gamed.” This measure will be reported only.
Educator/School Administrator
Retention (K-12)
Feedback from community conversations recommended including
teacher and school administrator retention as a measure of school
climate.
There is research to support the relationship between teacher and
school administrator retention and student learning. These data will
be available through the Excellent Educator Dashboard (EED).
Class Size (K-12) In grades K-5, class size equals the number of students per homeroom
as identified in the state’s pupil accounting system, eSchoolPLUS,
while the total number of classes offered throughout the day are used
to calculate class-size distribution for grades 6-12.
Stakeholders did not provide a strong recommendation regarding
inclusion of this metric; however, survey results and community
conversations indicated that it is important to report class size. This
measure will be reported only.
Specialist-to-Student Ratio
(K-12)
Feedback from community conversations and the Measures of School
Success and Public Reporting discussion group indicates that student
access to counselors, librarians, nurses, school psychologists, and
other school-based specialists is an important measure to report. This
measure will be reported only.
Equitable Access to Effective
Teachers (K-12)
Data relating to educator effectiveness, experience, and teaching out
of field will be available through the EED.
Significant stakeholder feedback indicates a strong desire to include
this metric in order to capture which teachers are teaching which
students. This measure will be reported only.
Inclusion of this metric also reinforces ESSA’s requirement that low
SES and students of color in Title I schools not be taught at higher
rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers.
Postsecondary Outcomes Performance for this metric does not currently receive a rating in the
accountability system. Rather, the current DSSF reports data
associated with this metric, defined as the percent of students who
enroll in a postsecondary institution within one year after high school
graduation.
Feedback from the Governor’s Advisory Committee recommends that
this metric continue to be included in the accountability system. As a
result of this feedback, this measure will be reported only and will
include college, postsecondary education, apprenticeship, military
service, and entrance into the workforce at one-year post graduation.
Rate of ELP Attainment Percentage of EL students who meet their target (PL 5.0 exit criteria)
annually.
41
B. Subgroups.
i. List the subgroups of students from each major and racial ethnic group in the State,
consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(a)(2), and, as applicable, describe any additional
subgroups of students used in the accountability system.
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Questions
A.4.i.a. List each major racial and ethnic group the State includes as a subgroup of students,
consistent with ESEA section 1111(c)(2)(B).
A.4.i.b. If applicable, describe any additional subgroups of students other than the statutorily
required subgroups (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial
and ethnic groups, children with disabilities, and English learners) used in the Statewide
accountability system.
Subgroups included in the DDOE accountability system include
All students
American Indian
African American
White, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Asian, Hispanic
Multiracial
SWD
EL
Low SES
Although not required in the accountability determination, consistent with 200.16(a)(2), the
DDOE will be also reporting, but not including in DSSF calculations, performance data for
the following subgroups: homeless, foster care, and military dependent.
ii. If applicable, describe the statewide uniform procedure for including former children
with disabilities in the children with disabilities subgroup for purposes of calculating any
indicator that uses data based on State assessment results under section
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA and as described in 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(b), including the
number of years the State includes the results of former children with disabilities.
Not applicable.
iii. If applicable, describe the statewide uniform procedure for including former English
learners in the English learner subgroup for purposes of calculating any indicator that
uses data based on State assessment results under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the
ESEA and as described in 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(1), including the number of years the
State includes the results of former English learners.
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.i.c. Does the State intend to include in the English learner subgroup the results of
students previously identified as English learners on the State assessments required under
ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) for purposes of State accountability (ESEA section
1111(b)(3)(B))? Note that a student’s results may be included in the English learner
subgroup for not more than four years after the student ceases to be identified as an
English learner.
☒ Yes
☐ No
42
The DDOE will include former ELs in academic achievement and academic progress
indicators for four years. This decision is the result of public feedback reported from the
Measures of School Success and Public Reporting discussion group and from the LEA ESL
Coordinators. The longitudinal data analysis of former ELs will allow the DDOE to
determine if exited students need additional supports in order to meet academic achievement
targets. The continued tracking and inclusion of this subgroup will also equip LEAs with
data to provide continued intensive support to former ELs with low literacy levels and who
are at risk of failure or dropout within the four years following their exit from EL services.
iv. If applicable, choose one of the following options for recently arrived English learners in
the State:
☐ Exception under 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(3)(i) or
☐ Exception under 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(3)(ii) or
☐ Exception under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(4)(i)(B). If
selected, provide a description of the uniform procedure in the box below.
☒ Other – DDOE State-Proposed Option 4: The state would like to propose to the U.S.
Department of Education a fourth option for recently arrived EL students.
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.i.d.If applicable, choose one of the following options for recently arrived English learners
in the State:
☐ Applying the exception under ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(A)(i); or
☐ Applying the exception under ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(A)(ii); or
☐ Applying the exception under ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(A)(i) or under ESEA section
1111(b)(3)(A)(ii). If this option is selected, describe how the State will choose which
exception applies to a recently arrived English learner.
☒ Other – DDOE State-Proposed Option 4: The state would like to propose to the U.S.
Department of Education a fourth option for recently arrived EL students.
The DDOE defines recently arrived ELs as an EL whose enrollment in any public school in
the United States has been less than 12 cumulative months (not consecutive). Recently
arrived status only applies to content area testing in grades 3-8 and 11.
It is the DDOE’s intention to create an accountability system that is responsive to newly
arrived ELs. Historically, newly arrived ELs represent a wide variety of ELP levels as well
as diverse prior formal educational experiences. Stakeholders, including the Governor’s
Advisory Council, the ESL Coordinators, and ESSA community conversation participants,
recognize that a high level of ELP is a necessary precursor to academic proficiency. Current
research demonstrates that it will take anywhere from five to seven years to meet this high
level of proficiency.
Therefore, the DDOE proposes the following option that complements the state’s ELP
accountability measures and goals. In this option, newly arrived ELs are afforded the time to
acclimate to a new educational environment and to develop the academic language needed for
success on statewide assessments. This option also highlights the importance of student
growth over time toward content proficiency.
43
Year 1: Provide an exception to the ELA participation requirement and exclude mathematics
results from accountability (reported only).
Year 2: ELA and mathematics must be assessed, but results are excluded from accountability
(reported only).
Year 3: ELA and mathematics results are only included in the growth indicator.
Year 4: ELA and mathematics results are fully included in accountability.
C. Minimum Number of Students.
i. Provide the minimum number of students for purposes of accountability that the State
determines are necessary to be included in each of the subgroups of students consistent
with 34 C.F.R. § 200.17(a).
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Questions
A.4.ii.a. Provide the minimum number of students for purposes of accountability that the
State determines are necessary to be included in each of the subgroups of students
A.4.ii.c. Describe how the minimum number of students was determined by the State,
including how the State collaborated with teachers, principals, other school leaders,
parents, and other stakeholders when determining such minimum number.
Accountability systems use a minimum number of students (n-size) for determining whether
to include a specific metric in a school’s accountability rating. The rationale is that, when the
number of students is very small, the metric is not likely to be a reliable measure of school
performance. Therefore, if the number of students for a metric meets or exceeds the
44
minimum n-size, the measure is considered reliable and is included in the school’s rating.
The measure is excluded if the minimum n-size is not met.
The majority of feedback received from multiple stakeholder groups, including the National
Downs Syndrome Congress and The Advocacy Institute, indicated a strong desire to decrease
the current n-size of 30 in order to address the academic needs of all subgroups of students.
The DDOE has decided to lower its n-size to 15, which is consistent with current reporting
rules and eliminates the disparity between the current n-size for accountability (30) and
reporting (15).
ii. If the State’s minimum number of students for purposes of reporting is lower than the
minimum number of students for purposes of accountability, provide that number
consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.17(a)(2)(iv).
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.ii.e. If the State’s minimum number of students for purposes of reporting is lower than
the minimum number of students for purposes of accountability, provide that number.
The DDOE’s minimum number of students for purposes of reporting is not lower than the
minimum number of students for purposes of accountability.
iii. Describe how the State's minimum number of students meets the requirements in 34
C.F.R. § 200.17(a)(1)-(2);
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.ii.b. Describe how the minimum number of students is statistically sound.
ESSA Section 200.17(a)(1) prohibits a state from using disaggregated data for reporting
purposes or accountability determinations if the number of students in the subgroup is
insufficient to yield statistically reliable information. Using a minimum n of 15 for
accountability provides both statistical reliability across accountability metric calculations
and privacy protection for those subgroups too small to report without disclosing personally
identifiable information.
iv. Describe how other components of the statewide accountability system, such as the
State’s uniform procedure for averaging data under 34 C.F.R. § 200.20(a), interact with
the minimum number of students to affect the statistical reliability and soundness of
accountability data and to ensure the maximum inclusion of all students and each
subgroup of students under 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(a)(2);
The DDOE’s accountability system does not average data across years or subgroups. The
DSSF uses multiple measures for each required subgroup under Section 200.16(a)(2). To
ensure the statistical reliability and soundness of the accountability data, the DDOE will use
an n-size of 15.
v. Describe the strategies the State uses to protect the privacy of individual students for each
purpose for which disaggregated data is required, including reporting under section
1111(h) of the ESEA and the statewide accountability system under section 1111(c) of
the ESEA;
45
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.ii.d. Describe how the State ensures that the minimum number is sufficient to not reveal
any personally identifiable information.
The DDOE uses a two-tiered approach to disclosure avoidance. When reporting aggregate
counts for mutually exclusive subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity subgroups or subgroups by
grade) where the total for all subgroups is also reported, the DDOE suppresses aggregate data
reporting for subgroups smaller than the minimum n-size. When reporting percentages, true
percentages will be capped if those percentages and the counts that underlie them
compromise student privacy. The DDOE will use an n-size of 15.
vi. Provide information regarding the number and percentage of all students and students in
each subgroup described in 4.B.i above for whose results schools would not be held
accountable under the State’s system for annual meaningful differentiation of schools
required by 34 C.F.R. § 200.18;
The table below shows the number of students excluded from accountability calculations
based on changes in n-size. The current n-size is n=30. The proposed n-size is n=15.
For example, using an n-size of 30, 366 African American students are excluded from
accountability statewide. By decreasing the n-size to 20, 138 African American students are
excluded. If the n-size is reduced to 15, 60 African American students are excluded, and with
an n-size of 10, 14 are excluded.
Demographic Total n n=30 n=20 n=15 n=10
African American 38,765 366 138 60 14
American Indian 512 512 512 512 424
Hispanic/Latino 19,243 760 352 158 70
Asian 4,629 1,556 1,023 750 401
Hawaiian 151 151 151 151 140
White 59,626 437 224 140 91
Multiracial 3,507 2,079 1,132 679 316
EL 8,329 1,291 877 491 248
Low SES 42,867 366 171 77 26
SWD 19,157 377 74 41 41
Feedback from the Governor’s Advisory Committee indicated an interest in seeing how many
schools would be excluded at each n-size. The table below illustrates how many schools, out
of 215 total statewide, would meet the various minimum n thresholds for each demographic
area. As n-size decreases, the number of schools held accountable for each subgroup
increases.
46
Schools Excluded n=30 n=20 n=15 n=10
Total # of
Schools
African American 14 6 3 0 215
American Indian 215 215 213 205 215
Hispanic/Latino 34 22 14 7 215
Asian 168 140 129 108 215
Hawaiian 215 215 215 214 215
White 25 18 13 8 215
Multiracial 161 120 91 61 215
EL 105 83 72 47 215
Low SES 8 7 2 0 215
SWD 12 4 3 3 215
vii. If an SEA proposes a minimum number of students that exceeds 30, provide a
justification that explains how a minimum number of students provided in 4.C above
promotes sound, reliable accountability determinations, including data on the number and
percentage of schools in the State that would not be held accountable in the system of
annual meaningful differentiation under 34 C.F.R. § 200.18 for the results of students in
each subgroup in 4.B.i above using the minimum number proposed by the State
compared to the data on the number and percentage of schools in the State that would not
be held accountable for the results of students in each subgroup if the minimum number
of students is 30.
The DDOE is not considering using an n-size that exceeds 30.
D. Annual Meaningful Differentiation. Describe the State’s system for annual meaningful
differentiation of all public schools in the State, including public charter schools, consistent with
the requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.12 and 200.18.
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.v.a. Describe the State’s system of annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools
in the State, consistent with the requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the ESEA,
including a description of (i) how the system is based on all indicators in the State’s
accountability system, (ii) for all students and for each subgroup of students. Note that
each state must comply with the requirements in 1111(c)(5) of the ESEA with respect to
accountability for charter schools.
Starting in the summer of 2014, the DDOE engaged with stakeholders across the state to devise a
comprehensive and authentic structure for measuring school and LEA performance. As a result
of these consultations, the DSSF was designed to incorporate multiple academic and
nonacademic measures related to college and career readiness for all students.
The DDOE will continue to implement the DSSF to categorize performance of all public schools.
To aid in meaningful differentiation between schools and between LEAs, ratings are based on
performance in each indicator (Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, School
Quality/Student Success, Graduation Rate, and Progress Toward English Language Proficiency).
47
Student data for each indicator will be reported and disaggregated at the school and LEA levels.
Data will be aggregated to generate a numeric score for each indicator. Weighted indicator scores
will then be combined to create a summative index score for the school. The summative index
score will then be translated into an overall text-based identification (i.e. exceeds, meets or meets
few expectations) based on a summative index score. Terminology to be used for text-based
identifications will be developed through stakeholder consultation.
Summative index scores will also be used to identify schools for Comprehensive Support and
Improvement (CSI), while subgroup summative index scores will be used to identify schools for
Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI). Schools that do not fall in one of these two categories
will be identified as “Other”. DDOE will develop final school support designation titles for CSI,
TSI, and “other” schools through stakeholder consultation. Schools identified as CSI will receive
the highest level of supports, and TSI schools will receive supports targeted to supporting specific
populations in order to foster continuous improvement.
While the DSSF applies to all schools, Delaware charter schools are also held to additional
standards of accountability and transparency. Adherence to state Charter School Performance
Frameworks (http://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/2267) is required at the point of application as well
as during annual reporting of charter school performance, formal review, and renewal processes
as mandated by Delaware’s charter school law. Charter school performance is reported for each
charter school and collectively for all charter schools annually.
Describe the following information with respect to the State’s system of annual meaningful
differentiation:
i. The distinct and discrete levels of school performance, and how they are calculated,
under 34 C.F.R. § 200.18(a)(2) on each indicator in the statewide accountability system;
Under the current multiple measures accountability system, schools and districts receive
ratings based on performance in each indicator (e.g., Academic Achievement, Growth, On
Track to Graduation, and College and Career Preparation). With the proposed refinements to
the DSSF, there are five indicators (Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, School
Quality/Student Success, Graduation Rate, and Progress Toward English Language
Proficiency). Student data for each indicator will be reported and disaggregated at the school
and LEA levels. Data will be aggregated to generate a numeric score for each indicator.
Weighted indicator scores will then be combined to create a summative index score for the
school. The summative index score will then be translated into an overall text-based
identification (i.e., exceeds, meets, or meets few expectations) based on the summative index
score. Terminology used for text-based identifications will be developed through stakeholder
consultation.
Summative index scores will also be used to identify schools for CSI, while subgroup
summative index scores will be used to identify schools for TSI. Schools that do not fall in
one of these two categories will be identified as “Other”. DDOE will develop final school
support designation titles for CSI, TSI, and “other” schools through stakeholder consultation.
Schools identified as CSI will receive the highest level of supports, and TSI schools will
receive supports targeted to supporting specific populations in order to foster continuous
improvement.
48
Under ESSA, schools will be identified for CSI and TSI during the 2018-2019 school year
using 2017-2018 data. DDOE will have the ability to calculate the new DSSF by the end of
November 2018, which will afford identified schools time to conduct their comprehensive
needs assessments and develop plans during the remainder of the 2018-2019 school year.
Implementation of those plans must begin no later than the beginning of the 2019-2020
school year.
ii. The weighting of each indicator, including how certain indicators receive substantial
weight individually and much greater weight in the aggregate, consistent with 34 C.F.R.
§ 200.18(b) and (c)(1)-(2).
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.v.b. Describe the weighting of each indicator in the State’s system of annual meaningful
differentiation, including how the Academic Achievement, Other Academic, Graduation
Rate, and Progress in ELP indicators each receive substantial weight individually and, in
the aggregate, much greater weight than the School Quality or Student Success
indicator(s), in the aggregate.
Feedback from community conversations, surveys, DSEA, the Governor’s Advisory
Committee, and the Measures of School Success and Public Reporting Discussion Group
highlighted the importance of weighting student growth more than absolute proficiency in
order to capture progress at the school level. Feedback also highlighted the importance of
providing considerable weight to learning conditions such as school quality and student
learning opportunities.
Based on this feedback, combined with the ESSA requirement that academic factors, in the
aggregate, be given more “substantial weight” than nonacademic indicators, the DDOE seeks
to utilize the following weights at the indicator level:
Academic Achievement – 25%
Academic Progress – 30% (growth metrics to include overall growth, growth to
proficiency, and growth of the lowest and highest quartiles)
School Quality/Student Success – 25%
Graduation Rate – 10%
Progress Toward ELP – 10%
With the proposed weighted measures outlined above, the DDOE’s accountability system
will contain an aggregate of 75% academic metrics. A group of data stewards and experts
representative of all LEAs in Delaware and data experts at the DDOE will model and vet the
final weighting of the metrics within the DSSF.
iii. The summative determinations, including how they are calculated, that are provided to
schools under 34 C.F.R. § 200.18(a)(4).
DDOE will calculate summative index scores and provide both summative text-based
identifications and summative school support designations. The summative index score will
be translated into an overall text-based identification (i.e., exceeds, meets, or meets few
expectations) based on the summative index score. Terminology used for text-based
identifications will be developed through stakeholder consultation.
49
Identification of public schools for CSI will be calculated by rank ordering Title I schools as
measured by the overall score on the DSSF and identifying the 5% lowest-performing Title I
schools.
Feedback from the School Support and Improvement Survey, the Governor’s Advisory
Committee, and the community conversations indicates that DDOE stakeholders believe that
“all schools” should be considered when identifying CSI status rather than just Title I only or
Title I eligible schools. More than twice as many participants in the community
conversations felt that all schools should be considered for identification, a vast majority of
the advisory committee agreed, and 55% of those surveyed indicated the same. Based on this
stakeholder feedback, the DDOE will consider all schools when identifying schools for CSI.
The DDOE will allocate state school improvement funds to support non-Title I schools that
perform as low or lower than the 5% lowest-performing Title I schools.
TSI-1 schools will be identified based on an index across all indicators of the DSSF for each
student subgroup. This subgroup summative index score will then be compared to the
performance of all students in CSI schools. The DDOE will then rank the performance of
each subgroup in this set of schools. The 5% of accountability schools with the lowest-
performing subgroup summative index scores will be identified as TSI-1 schools.
Feedback from chiefs and charter school directors indicate that, in addition to summative
index scores and summative text-based identifications, summative school determinations as
CSI, TSI, and a third “Other” determination should be reported on school report cards.
DDOE will include both the summative text-based identification and the summative school
support designation for each school on the school report cards.
DDOE will develop final school support designation titles for CSI, TSI, and “other” schools
through stakeholder consultation.
iv. How the system for meaningful differentiation and the methodology for identifying
schools under 34 C.F.R. § 200.19 will ensure that schools with low performance on
substantially weighted indicators are more likely to be identified for comprehensive
support and improvement or targeted support and improvement, consistent with 34
C.F.R. § 200.18(c)(3) and (d)(1)(ii).
The DSSF is comprised of indicators, or metric areas, that have varying weights. The
academic achievement, academic progress, graduation rate, and progress toward ELP
indicators, in aggregate, weigh substantially more than the school quality/student success
indicator.
All indicators, with their varying weights, will be aggregated into an overall score. The range
of possible overall scores is from 0 to 500. Actual overall scores for schools based on current
data for all students range from about 80 to 450. Based on current data, the schools in the
lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools (potential CSI schools) for their overall DSSF score
are also consistently among the lowest-performing schools on the substantially weighted
indictors.
Weighted DSSF calculations will also be performed for each subgroup in each school to
identify TSI schools. Data modeling shows that that the schools with the lowest-performing
subgroups will be the ones most likely identified for TSI.
50
E. Participation Rate. Describe how the State is factoring the requirement for 95 percent student
participation in assessments into its system of annual meaningful differentiation of schools
consistent with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 200.15.
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.vii. Annual Measurement of Achievement (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E)(iii)): Describe
how the State factors the requirement for 95 percent student participation in statewide
mathematics and reading/language arts assessments into the statewide accountability
system.
As required by federal law, the DDOE is committed to all schools meeting the 95% student
participation for all students and for all subgroups. DDOE will report the participation rates for
schools. For schools that do not meet the 95% participation rate, DDOE will require each school
to submit a plan that includes strategies for meeting participation requirements. For schools that
do not meet the participation rate for multiple years or that does not show sustained improvement
in meeting the 95% participation rate, DDOE will implement additional actions and interventions
as appropriate.
F. Data Procedures. Describe the State’s uniform procedure for averaging data, including
combining data across school years, combining data across grades, or both, in a school as defined
in 34 C.F.R. § 200.20(a), if applicable.
The DDOE does not currently average data across school years. However, DDOE is considering
data averaging as this procedure helps to mitigate statistical anomalies. These anomalies tend to
be seen in small schools where one student’s data could dramatically sway overall school
performance.
G. Including All Public Schools in a State’s Accountability System. If the States uses a different
methodology for annual meaningful differentiation than the one described in D above for any of
the following specific types of schools, describe how they are included, consistent with 34 C.F.R.
§ 200.18(d)(1)(iii):
i. Schools in which no grade level is assessed under the State's academic assessment system
(e.g., P-2 schools), although the State is not required to administer a standardized
assessment to meet this requirement;
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.v.c. If the States uses a different methodology or methodologies for annual meaningful
differentiation than the one described in 4.v.a. above for schools for which an
accountability determination cannot be made (e.g., P-2 schools), describe the different
methodology or methodologies, indicating the type(s) of schools to which it applies.
For those schools whose grade configuration does not require the administration of a
statewide academic assessment (e.g., K-2 schools), the DDOE’s current accountability
system attributes a portion of each applicable third grader’s academic performance on a
prorated basis to the schools in which they attended grades K-2. That performance is then
aggregated to attribute an accountability score to those schools with non-assessed grades.
The school that provided kindergarten services would be accountable for 10% of the score;
the school that provided first grade services gets 20% of the score; the school that provided
51
second grade services gets 30% of the score; the school that provided third grade services
gets 40% of the score. DDOE will continue to use this methodology.
ii. Schools with variant grade configurations (e.g., P-12 schools);
For those schools with grade configurations that span both elementary and secondary grades,
(e.g., P-12 schools), the DDOE’s current accountability system treats these schools as
secondary schools to generate an accountability rating.
iii. Small schools in which the total number of students who can be included in any indicator
under 34 C.F.R. § 200.14 is less than the minimum number of students established by the
State under 34 C.F.R. § 200.17(a)(1), consistent with a State’s uniform procedures for
averaging data under 34 C.F.R. § 200.20(a), if applicable;
Any metric with an n-size smaller than the accountability threshold will not be included when
calculating accountability ratings. The points associated with those metrics will either be
redistributed to other metrics within that indicator, or they will be subtracted from the total
number of points possible. For example, if a school has no tested grades in science, either the
points associated with the science metric will be redistributed to ELA, mathematics, and
social studies, or the total number of points for the academic achievement indicator will be
reduced according to the business rules.
iv. Schools that are designed to serve special populations (e.g., students receiving alternative
programming in alternative educational settings; students living in local institutions for
neglected or delinquent children, including juvenile justice facilities; students enrolled in
State public schools for the deaf or blind; and recently arrived English learners enrolled
in public schools for newcomer students); and
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.v.c. If the States uses a different methodology or methodologies for annual meaningful
differentiation than the one described in 4.v.a. above for schools for which an
accountability determination cannot be made (e.g., P-2 schools), describe the different
methodology or methodologies, indicating the type(s) of schools to which it applies.
There are two categories used to identify the accountability status of a school, including
schools that serve special populations:
Category 1 – Schools that are Title I schools for the given year.
Category 2 – Schools that are not Title I schools for the given year but have enrolled
students generated through the unit count process.
If a school falls within either of these two categories, the school receives an accountability
rating. However, some schools serving special populations are not considered accountability
schools. In this case, students are reassigned back to an appropriate accountability school.
As such, the DDOE accountability system captures all students regardless of the school they
attend. Charter schools that are identified as serving “at-risk” students are governed under
state charter school law and may have alternate measures above and beyond the measures
included in the statewide accountability system.
v. Newly opened schools that do not have multiple years of data, consistent with a State’s
uniform procedure for averaging data under 34 C.F.R. § 200.20(a), if applicable, for at
52
least one indicator (e.g., a newly opened high school that has not yet graduated its first
cohort for students).
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.v.c. If the States uses a different methodology or methodologies for annual meaningful
differentiation than the one described in 4.v.a. above for schools for which an
accountability determination cannot be made (e.g., P-2 schools), describe the different
methodology or methodologies, indicating the type(s) of schools to which it applies.
Newly opened schools with at least one state assessment-eligible grade currently receive an
accountability determination per the DDOE’s accountability business rules. If the newly
opened school has a grade configuration that does not require a statewide assessment, current
business rules stipulate they do not receive an accountability score until such time as their
grade configuration expands to state assessment-eligible grades or their students matriculate
into state assessment-eligible grades, whichever comes first.
4.2 Identification of Schools.
A. Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe:
i. The methodologies, including the timeline, by which the State identifies schools for
comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA
and 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(a) and (d), including: 1) lowest-performing schools; 2) schools
with low high school graduation rates; and 3) schools with chronically low-performing
subgroups.
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Questions
A.4.vi.a. Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe the State’s
methodology for identifying not less than the lowest-performing five percent of all
schools receiving Title I, Part A funds in the State for comprehensive support and
improvement, including the year in which the State will first identify such schools.
A.4.vi.b. Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe the State’s
methodology for identifying all public high schools in the State failing to graduate one
third or more of their students for comprehensive support and improvement, including the
year in which the State will first identify such schools.
A.4.vi.c. Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe the methodology by
which the State identifies public schools in the State receiving Title I, Part A funds that
have received additional targeted support under ESEA section 1111(d)(2)(C) (based on
identification as a school in which any subgroup of students, on its own, would lead to
identification under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(I) using the State’s methodology
under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(D)) and that have not satisfied the statewide exit criteria
for such schools within a State-determined number of years, including the year in which
the State will first identify such schools.
A.4.vi.d. Frequency of Identification. Provide, for each type of school identified for
comprehensive support and improvement, the frequency with which the State will,
thereafter, identify such schools. Note that these schools must be identified at least once
every three years.
A.4.vi.g. Additional Statewide Categories of Schools. If the State chooses, at its discretion, to
include additional statewide categories of schools, describe those categories.
CSI School Identification: ESSA specifies that SEAs “establish a state-determined
methodology to identify beginning with school year 2017-2018, and at least once every three
53
school years thereafter one statewide category of schools for comprehensive support and
improvement”. Schools meeting the following criteria are required to be identified:
Lowest-Performing 5% of Title I Schools (CSI-1): The lowest-performing 5% of all Title
I schools in the state (based on performance on accountability framework over no more
than 3 years).
Low Graduation Rate High Schools (CSI-2): All public schools (Title I or non-Title I)
that graduate less than 67% of their students. States can set a higher graduation rate
requirement.
Schools with Chronically Low-Performing Subgroups (CSI-3): Any Title I school with at
least one chronically low-performing subgroup of students. Chronically low-performing
subgroup of students is defined as a subgroup that is performing as poorly as all students
in any of the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools and that has not sufficiently
improved (as defined by the state) after implementation of a TSI plan over no more than
three years.
CSI-Re-identified (CSI-R):
Schools identified as Priority Schools under ESEA Flex and have not yet met exit
targets will automatically be elevated to CSI-R status if they are re-identified under
ESSA accountability measures.
Schools initially identified under ESSA that do not meet CSI targets within the
identification cycle will be “re-identified” as CSI-R.
The identification of CSI schools will be determined based on an index across all indicators
of the DSSF. DDOE will use summative index scores to identify the lowest-performing
schools in the state. Using this methodology, the state will identify CSI schools every three
years.
Feedback from the School Support and Improvement Survey, the Governor’s Advisory
Committee, and the community conversations indicates that DDOE stakeholders believe that
“all schools” should be considered when identifying CSI status rather than just Title I only or
Title I-eligible schools. More than twice as many participants in the community
conversations felt that all schools should be considered for identification, a vast majority of
the Governor’s Advisory Committee agreed, and 55% of those surveyed indicated the same.
Based on this stakeholder feedback, the DDOE will consider all schools when identifying
CSI schools. With regard to the consideration of all schools for CSI identification, the DDOE
will allocate state school improvement funds to support non-Title I schools that perform as
low or lower than the 5% lowest-performing Title I schools.
When asked to consider whether the state should use the lowest 5% of all schools or the
lowest 5% of schools by each grade span (elementary, middle, and high), two stakeholder
groups (surveys and community conversations) clearly indicated that the state should identify
schools by grade span. Conversely, the majority of the Governor’s Advisory Committee
conveyed that the schools should be determined by rank order.
Subsequent data modeling suggests that rank order will identify schools across all grade
spans. Therefore, the DDOE decided to identify the lowest 5% of schools in rank order.
54
In addition, all public high schools (Title I or non-Title I) that graduate less than 67% of their
students will be identified for CSI beginning in the 2018-2019 school year using 2017-2018
four-year cohort graduation rate data.
Per ESSA Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II), TSI-1 schools that do not meet exit targets within
three years will be identified for CSI beginning November 2022.
The DDOE will identify CSI schools by the end of November 2018 using 2017-2018 school
year data. LEAs and schools will then conduct needs assessment and planning prior to
implementation by the beginning of the 2019-2020 school year. LEAs will assist schools in
conducting a needs assessment, analyzing the data, and developing school improvement
plans. The DDOE will provide support and assistance to LEAs in the form of:
Planning tools and templates;
Sample needs assessment tools;
Root cause analysis;
Fiscal and plan monitoring;
Evidence-based resources/strategies;
Assistance in plan development and grant application; and
Deploying DDOE experts for ongoing support.
LEAs will not be required to use the DDOE identified tools and resources; however, if an
LEA elects to use a locally developed template, it must meet DDOE approval and ESSA
needs assessment, planning, and budgeting requirements.
CSI schools will be identified in November every three years beginning in November 2018.
Identification will be based on the prior school year’s data (DSSF indicator index, four-year
graduation cohort rate), and whether prior-cycle TSI exit targets are or are not met.
ii. The uniform statewide exit criteria for schools identified for comprehensive support and
improvement established by the State, including the number of years over which schools
are expected to meet such criteria, under section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) of the ESEA and
consistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 200.21(f)(1).
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.viii.a. Exit Criteria for Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools. Describe the
statewide exit criteria, established by the State, for schools identified for comprehensive
support and improvement, including the number of years (not to exceed four) over which
schools are expected to meet such criteria.
Exit criteria for CSI schools:
ESSA requires the state to establish uniform statewide exit criteria for schools implementing
a CSI plan. At a minimum, exit criteria must require that within a state-determined number
of years (not to exceed four years), the school: 1) improves student outcomes; and 2) no
longer meets the criteria for identification as a CSI school (suggesting that exit criteria need
to be aligned to the state’s accountability framework).
The majority of individuals across all the stakeholder groups agreed that the exit criteria for
schools identified for CSI status should be the same as the criteria for which the school was
identified. Similarly, the stakeholder groups agreed that schools should have up to four years
to exit CSI status. When asked, “If a school meets its exit criteria early (less than four years),
55
what should be the next step?” once again most stakeholders (surveys, community
conversations, Governor’s Advisory Committee) conveyed that the state should require
schools to meet targets for a second year in order to validate and sustain outcomes for
students. In that regard, the stakeholders also indicated that schools should develop a
“sustainability plan” while receiving additional funding as well as ongoing monitoring and
technical assistance from the DDOE.
Schools identified for CSI status will be identified every three years. LEAs will have up to
one year for improvement planning and up to three years to exit CSI status (not exceeding
four years in total). The DDOE will identify the first cohort of CSI schools by the end of
November 2018, using 2017-2018 data. The subsequent cohorts of CSI schools will be
identified in November for each identification cycle.
The circumstances and factors contributing to the status of each school vary. This will
require the DDOE to provide individualized support to schools and LEAs. During the
“Needs Analysis” phase, the DDOE will work with the LEA and school to examine previous
school improvement efforts. This will include examining evidence of effectiveness and
implementation of programs, systems, strategies, initiatives, assessments, staffing, and other
factors that were intended to drive improvement.
ESSA Title I, Part A, § 1111(d)(3) requires states to establish exit targets for identified
schools. Once schools are identified, the DDOE will negotiate CSI exit targets with LEAs
based on the data from 2017-2018 school year. The DDOE will collaborate with LEAs to
establish ambitious but achievable targets that will improve outcomes for students as
indicated by the DSSF. The intent is to set targets that are relevant and appropriate to the
needs of the individual school communities and that are reasonable to the extent that the
school will not be immediately re-identified in the next identification cycle. When
determining the exit targets, the DDOE will examine performance on each DSSF indicator
for the identified school and work with the LEA to customize the individual indicator targets
to reflect appropriate growth needed for the individual school.
Note: Any charter school identified for CSI will be placed on the formal review process as
outlined in 14 Del Code § 515 and follow the formal review process in lieu of the CSI
process.
If a school does not exit CSI status within four years, what should be the next step?
The participants from the community conversations most commonly identified the need to
conduct a comprehensive analysis to diagnose the reasons why the school did not exit and
develop a new plan to address the specific issues based on root causes. The survey feedback
echoed similar sentiments with 60% of respondents indicating, “Enhanced on-site technical
assistance and professional learning,” provided by the DDOE with an additional 40%
requesting, “More intensive support and oversight to schools,” and a “Leadership capacity
review.”
Schools identified as Priority Schools under ESEA Flex and have not yet met exit targets will
automatically be elevated to CSI-R status if they are re-identified under ESSA accountability
measures. In addition, schools that do not exit CSI status within four years will enter CSI-R
status. DDOE will work collaboratively with the LEA and CSI-R school to identify an
56
external partner to conduct qualitative needs assessments at both the school and district
levels.
The qualitative needs assessments will examine the efficacy of previous school improvement
efforts/plans and current school conditions. This will also include an assessment of the
leadership capacity/competency at the school and district level. By using an external partner
to conduct the qualitative needs assessment, the LEA/school will get an unbiased, objective
assessment of the school from a fresh perspective.
The results of these qualitative needs assessments will be one component of the required
comprehensive needs assessment, which also includes quantitative data analysis related to
DSSF measures, school profile data, educator equity data, financial risk assessments, program
analyses, community input, and additional LEA data. Funding for the external needs
assessment may come from the CSI-R grant or other funding sources. The DDOE will work
with IHEs and other external partners to develop local, effective, and cost-efficient external
evaluators and evaluation systems.
The DDOE will work collaboratively with the LEA/school to examine the findings of the
needs assessment and provide support in the development of an appropriate and actionable
improvement plan. Additional data analyses (quantitative data described above) will be used
to identify which of the previous interventions should or should not be continued and to
determine if other evidence-based strategies are needed.
B. Targeted Support and Improvement Schools. Describe:
i. The State’s methodology for identifying any school with a “consistently
underperforming” subgroup of students, including the definition and time period used by
the State to determine consistent underperformance, under 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b)(1) and
(c).
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Questions
A.4.vi.e. Targeted Support and Improvement. Describe the State’s methodology for annually
identifying any school with one or more “consistently underperforming” subgroups of
students, based on all indicators in the statewide system of annual meaningful
differentiation, including the definition used by the State to determine consistent
underperformance. (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii))
TSI School Identification: ESSA calls for schools to be identified as in need of “targeted
support and improvement” if they have at least one subgroup of students underperforming.
ESSA calls for two types of TSI schools:
Low-Performing Subgroup at Level of Lowest 5% of Schools (TSI-1): Schools (Title I or
non-Title I) with at least one low-performing subgroup of students, defined as a subgroup
of students that is performing as poorly as all students in any of the lowest-performing
5% of Title I schools (CSI schools).
Consistently Underperforming Subgroups (TSI-2): Schools (Title I or non-Title I) that
have at least one “consistently underperforming” subgroup as identified through a
DDOE-established methodology (to be determined) based on the state’s accountability
system.
57
TSI-2 schools will be identified using similar methodology as used for the identification of
TSI-1 schools as outlined in section 4.2.B.ii; however, TSI-2 schools will be identified based
on all accountability schools not already identified under CSI or TSI-1. TSI-2 will be
identified annually beginning in November 2019. The DDOE will consider TSI-2 schools as
“watch list” schools and will provide technical assistance to support LEAs, similar to the
supports provided to TSI-1 schools. The LEA will help schools develop and monitor a plan
for targeted support and improvement. If TSI-2 schools do not make sufficient progress prior
to the next identification cycle for CSI and TSI-1, they may be identified for TSI-1.
ii. The DDOE’s methodology, including the timeline, for identifying schools with low-
performing subgroups of students under 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b)(2) and (d) that must
receive additional targeted support in accordance with section 1111(d)(2)(C) of the
ESEA.
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Questions
A.4.vi.f. Additional Targeted Support. Describe the State’s methodology, for identifying
schools in which any subgroup of students, on its own, would lead to identification under
ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(I) using the State’s methodology under ESEA section
1111(c)(4)(D), including the year in which the State will first identify such schools and
the frequency with which the State will, thereafter, identify such schools. (ESEA section
1111(d)(2)(C)-(D))
The DDOE will first identify schools for CSI as outlined in section 4.2.A. TSI-1 schools will
be identified based on an index across all indicators of the DSSF for each student subgroup.
This subgroup summative index score will then be compared to the performance of all
students in CSI schools. The DDOE will then rank the performance of each subgroup in this
set of schools. The 5% of accountability schools with the lowest-performing subgroups will
be identified as TSI-1 schools. The DDOE will identify TSI-1 schools every three years
based on the prior school year’s data (DSSF indicator index for each subgroup of students).
The first identification will be in November 2018 using 2017-2018 data.
Please see above section 4.2.A for stakeholder feedback regarding school improvement
identification.
58
SY 17-18
Continuation of school support and improvement cycle under Ed Flex Waiver
Year 2 implementation for Focus
Year 3 for Focus Plus, and Priority Schools
DDOE technical assistance and support to LEAs and schools
Baseline data for first cohort identification, support and improvement cycle (under ESSA)
SY 18-19
Year 3 implementation for Focus
Sustainability for Focus Plus and Priority Schools until ESSA identification in November 2018
DDOE technical assistance and support to LEAs and schools
First cohort identification and improvement cycle begins (under ESSA)
November (2018): CSI and TSI-1 schools identified
November-May (2018-2019): CSI and TSI-1 target setting and needs assessment/planning
support to LEAs and schools; may include planning grants, depending on funding
May-July (2019): CSI plan and grant submission to DDOE; TSI-1 plan approval by LEA +
TSI-1 grant submission to DDOE
SY 19-20
July-August (2019): CSI plan approval and funding to LEAs
Year 1 implementation for CSI and TSI-1 schools
DDOE technical assistance and support to LEAs and schools
November (2019): first annual TSI-2 schools identified
November-May (2019-2020): TSI-2 target setting, needs assessment and planning support to
LEAs and schools
May-July (2020): CSI & TSI-1 year 2 plan review/reflect and grant submission to DDOE
SY 20-21
July-August (2020): CSI plan approval and funding to LEAs
Year 2 implementation for CSI and TSI-1 schools
DDOE technical assistance and support to LEAs and schools
Year 1 implementation for TSI-2 schools
November (2020): annual TSI-2 schools identified
November-May (2020-2021): TSI-2 target setting, needs assessment and planning support to
LEAs and schools
May-July (2021): CSI & TSI-1 year 3 plan review/reflect and grant submission to DDOE
SY 21-22
July-August (2021): CSI funding to LEAs
Year 3 implementation for CSI and TSI-1 schools
Year 2 implementation for TSI-2 schools
November (2021): annual TSI-2 schools identified
November-May (2021-2022): TSI-2 target setting, needs assessment and planning support to
LEAs and schools
DDOE technical assistance and support to LEAs and schools
SY 22-23
Second Cohort school identification and improvement cycle begins (under ESSA)
November (2022): CSI-R, TSI-1, and CSI schools identified
November-May (2022-2023): CSI-R, TSI-1, and CSI target setting and needs
assessment/planning support to LEAs and schools
May-July (2023): CSI-R, TSI-1, and CSI plan and grant submission to DDOE; TSI-1 plan
approval by LEA
November (2022): annual TSI-2 schools identified
November-May (2022-2023): TSI-2 target setting, needs assessment and planning support to
LEAs and schools
DDOE technical assistance and support to LEAs and schools TSI-1: Low-Performing Student Subgroup at level of lowest 5% of school (based on DSSF scoring index)
TSI-2: Consistently Underperforming Schools (based on DSSF scoring index)
CSI-R: Re-Identified CSI Schools; at each three-year school identification and improvement analysis
Exit Targets: Set at time of identification; specific DSSF score index is the determining factor for identification and exit
59
iii. The uniform exit criteria, established by the SEA, for schools participating under Title I,
Part A with low-performing subgroups of students, including the number of years over
which schools are expected to meet such criteria, consistent with the requirements in 34
C.F.R. § 200.22(f).
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.viii.b. Exit Criteria for Schools Receiving Additional Targeted Support. Describe the
statewide exit criteria, established by the State, for schools receiving additional targeted
support under ESEA section 1111(d)(2)(C), including the number of years over which
schools are expected to meet such criteria.
Schools identified for TSI-1 status will be identified every three years. LEAs will have up to
one year for improvement planning and up to three years to exit TSI-1 status (not exceeding
four years in total). The DDOE will identify the first cohort of TSI schools by November
2018. LEAs and schools will then conduct a comprehensive needs assessment and planning
prior to implementation by the beginning of the 2019-2020 school year. Subsequent cohorts
of TSI-1 schools will be identified by November each year. Schools and LEAs will conduct
needs assessments between November and May, and begin implementation prior to the
following school year.
ESSA Title I, Part A, § 1111(d)(3) requires states to establish exit targets for identified
schools. Once identified, the DDOE will negotiate with LEAs to determine TSI-1 exit targets
using baseline data from the 2017-2018 school year. The DDOE in collaboration with the
LEAs will establish ambitious but achievable targets that will improve outcomes for students
as indicated by the DSSF. The intent will be to set targets that are relevant and appropriate to
the needs of the individual school communities and that are reasonable to the extent that the
school will not be identified as CSI status in the next identification cycle. When determining
the exit targets, the DDOE will examine performance on each DSSF indicator for the
identified school in each subgroup that led to identification. The DDOE will work with the
LEA to customize the individual indicator targets to reflect appropriate growth needed for the
individual school.
Per ESSA Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II), TSI-1 schools that do not meet exit targets within
three years will be identified for CSI.
4.3 State Support and Improvement for Low-Performing Schools.
A. School Improvement Resources. Describe how the SEA will meet its responsibilities,
consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.24(d) under section 1003 of the ESEA, including the process to
award school improvement funds to LEAs and monitoring and evaluating the use of funds by
LEAs.
The DDOE intends to build sustainable continuous improvement leadership at the LEA and
school level by providing differentiated supports throughout the needs assessment, planning, and
implementation process. DDOE supports will be provided based on the individual needs of each
LEA and school and will be reduced as LEA and school expertise grow. The following graphic
summarizes the range of individualized supports the DDOE will provide to schools and LEAs in
need of improvement.
60
Individualization will be key in the school improvement process. The circumstances and factors
contributing to the status of each school vary from school to school. This will require the DDOE
to provide individualized support to schools and LEAs. During the “Needs Analysis” phase, the
DDOE will work with the LEA and school to examine previous school improvement efforts/
plans. This will include looking at programs, systems, strategies, initiatives, assessments,
staffing, and all factors that were intended to bring about change in that school. It will be
important for the school/LEA to understand the context and environment in which these prior
efforts occurred and the fidelity of implementation. The intent is to conduct an honest and
comprehensive needs assessment; develop an actionable, ambitious, and realistic plan with a clear
focus; and implement that plan with fidelity and support.
Another element necessary for successful school improvement is community engagement.
Schools under improvement must engage stakeholders in a meaningful way to conduct an honest
needs assessment and develop an appropriate improvement plan to address identified needs.
The DDOE will work with LEAs/schools to engage the community in a much more open,
comprehensive way. The DDOE will support LEA and school engagement efforts with families,
the community, local businesses, and other agencies.
As mentioned in Section 2.2.C with regard to the continuous improvement cycle, the DDOE will
provide technical assistance and guidance to LEAs to assist in completing a comprehensive needs
assessment. The comprehensive needs assessment will be required as part of the consolidated
grant application process. The DDOE will support and guide LEAs in identifying and prioritizing
greatest needs and in planning long- and short-term implementation strategies. The DDOE
intends to build continuous improvement leadership at the LEA and school level by providing
supports throughout the needs assessment, planning, and implementation process.
61
The DDOE will monitor implementation of targeted strategies throughout the year and provide
information on evidence-based best practices, supporting resources, on-demand guidance, and
other technical assistance to support effective execution and implementation. In particular, the
DDOE will monitor school improvement implementation and expenditures of related funds as
part of the monthly check-ins. This will include the examination of progress implementing
evidence-based strategies and whether the LEA is on track in spending funds aligned to the
improvement plan strategies and by funding category.
When considering how the DDOE should distribute Title I funds for schools identified for CSI,
the DDOE asked stakeholders to consider whether it should be a formula-based grant, a
competitive grant, or a hybrid of the two. More than twice as many participants in the
stakeholder community conversations supported the hybrid approach compared to the formula
grant, while none supported the use of a competitive grant process. Similarly, stakeholders that
responded to the School Support and Improvement Survey agreed that the DDOE should
distribute funds through a hybrid funding mechanism versus a strict formula grant. None of those
surveyed indicated that the distribution of funds should be through a competitive grant.
The DDOE will award school improvement funds through a hybrid grant process that combines a
formula-based allocation with optional additional competitive funds also available. Each school
will receive a formula-based amount of funds determined by student enrollment. The LEA may
also apply for and receive additional funds allocated through a rubric-based competitive grant
process.
The DDOE will have approximately $3.2 million in 1003(a) school supports and improvement
funds, of which, approximately $160,000 are set aside for state administration purposes. The
remaining amount of just over $3 million would be available as pass-through funds to support
school improvement.
Since the DDOE would need to identify eight CSI schools to meet the 5% identification
requirement, there would be less than $400,000 available per school. Therefore, the DDOE
proposes to provide a formula grant for CSI schools based on a per-pupil amount for the first $2.4
million. Based on estimates of the total enrollment across identified schools of approximately
3,000 students, the per-pupil amount for formula awards will be approximately $800. If the
formula amount does not sufficiently enable effective implementation of selected improvement
strategies, then the LEA may also apply for a portion of the remaining $600,000 to $700,000 on a
competitive basis. Competitive grant awards will be determined based on strategy alignment to
identified needs, evidence base of selected strategies, and verified costs. This information will be
included in the formula funds application, and will not require significant additional work for the
LEA or school.
The DDOE will allocate state school improvement funds to provide CSI supports to non-Title I
schools performing as low or lower than the 5% lowest-performing Title I schools.
DDOE funding available under ESSA section 1003(a) will very likely be insufficient to fund TSI-
1 schools at a significant level. Once all CSI school improvement funds have been allocated, the
DDOE will examine the remaining funds to determine available money to best support TSI
schools.
62
Any remaining 1003(a) funds will be combined with any excess program state administration
funds and/or available state funds in order to provide fiscal support for TSI school improvement
efforts. Once this amount is determined, LEAs will be eligible to apply for TSI support based on
a per-pupil amount. Regardless of funding amounts, the DDOE will still provide technical
assistance to support LEAs and schools identified as TSI-1 and TSI-2 and recommend that the
LEA set aside funds to provide additional support to each TSI school.
B. Technical Assistance Regarding Evidence-Based Interventions. Describe the technical
assistance the SEA will provide to each LEA in the State serving a significant number or
percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement,
including how it will provide technical assistance to LEAs to ensure the effective implementation
of evidence-based interventions, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.23(b), and, if applicable, the list
of State-approved, evidence-based interventions for use in schools implementing comprehensive
or targeted support and improvement plans consistent with § 200.23(c)(2)-(3).
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.viii.e. Technical Assistance. Describe the technical assistance the State will provide to
each LEA in the State serving a significant number or percentage of schools identified for
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement.
ESSA requires each SEA to describe its processes for approving, monitoring, and periodically
reviewing LEA CSI plans. The DDOE will offer a variety of supports to schools and LEAs that
could include on-site technical assistance; off-site networking sessions; embedded professional
learning; virtual learning experiences; guidance documents; and templates to support needs
assessment, improvement planning, and monitoring.
The DDOE will collaborate with LEAs and regional assistance centers to develop a resource hub
with regionally implemented, evidenced-based strategies. In addition, the DDOE will assist
LEAs in exploring and identifying appropriate resources in national clearinghouses, such as:
What Works Clearinghouse
Results First
Regional Education Laboratories
Best Evidence Encyclopedia
As mentioned previously throughout this plan, the DDOE conducted a variety of stakeholder
engagement activities to elicit input. Community Meeting participants provided valuable
feedback for the DDOE to consider when outlining options for technical assistance and
identifying evidence-based strategies for ESSA. While opinions often varied by topic and
question, a set of common themes did emerge:
Addressing social and emotional skills. Participants discussing both measures of student
readiness and early learning programs stressed the need to prioritize social and emotional
learning as an area to provide instruction and measure student ability.
Developing a positive school climate. Participants felt that it was important that school
climate be included as an indicator of school quality and enhanced as a strategy for improving
teacher recruitment and retention.
63
Ensuring smaller class sizes. Ensuring smaller class sizes was emphasized as an important
strategy during discussions about how to help ELs, special education students, and students
experiencing poverty or trauma, and in conversations about recruiting and retaining teachers.
Providing access to wraparound services. The availability of “wraparound” services, such as
mental and physical health care, counseling, after school programs, tutoring, and other
supports, were discussed in a variety of ways across all three topic areas.
The DDOE will explore and identify strategies, resources, and opportunities that can assist in
addressing the themes outlined above. The DDOE will work with LEAs, the business
community, and other state agencies to address common needs identified through the LEA-led
needs assessments, root cause analyses, and school improvement plan processes.
C. More Rigorous Interventions. Describe the more rigorous interventions required for schools
identified for comprehensive support and improvement that fail to meet the State’s exit criteria
within a State-determined number of years consistent with section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) of the ESEA
and 34 C.F.R. § 200.21(f)(3)(iii).
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Questions
A.4.viii.c. More Rigorous Interventions. Describe the more rigorous interventions required
for schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement that fail to meet the
State’s exit criteria within a State-determined number of years consistent with section
1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(I) of the ESEA.
A.4.viii.f. Additional Optional Action. If applicable, describe the action the State will take to
initiate additional improvement in any LEA with a significant number or percentage of
schools that are consistently identified by the State for comprehensive support and
improvement and are not meeting exit criteria established by the State or in any LEA
with a significant number or percentage of schools implementing targeted support and
improvement plans.
As mentioned previously in section 4.2.A.ii:
The participants from the community conversations most commonly identified the need to
conduct a comprehensive analysis to diagnose the reasons why the school did not exit and
develop a new plan to address the specific issues based on root causes. The survey feedback
echoed similar sentiments with 60% of respondents indicating, “Enhanced on-site technical
assistance and professional learning” provided by the DDOE, with an additional 40% requesting,
“More intensive support and oversight to schools,” and a “Leadership capacity review.”
Schools identified for improvement under previous iterations of the law and re-identified under
ESSA will automatically be elevated to CSI-R status. In addition, schools that do not exit CSI
status within four years will enter CSI-R status. DDOE will work collaboratively with the LEA
and CSI-R school to identify an external partner to conduct qualitative needs assessments at both
the school and district levels.
The qualitative needs assessments will examine previous school improvement efforts/plans,
programs, strategies, initiatives, instructional practices, assessments, staffing, systems
development, and all factors that were intended to bring about change in that school. This will
also include an assessment of the leadership capacity/competency at the school and district level.
By using an external partner to conduct the qualitative needs assessment, the LEA/school will get
an unbiased, objective assessment of the school from a fresh perspective.
64
The results of these qualitative needs assessments will be one component of the required
comprehensive needs assessment, which also includes quantitative data analysis related to DSSF
measures, school profile data, educator equity data, financial risk assessments, program analyses,
community input and additional LEA data. Funding for the external needs assessment may come
from the CSI-R grant or other funding sources. The DDOE will work with IHEs and other
external partners to develop local, effective, and cost-efficient external evaluators and evaluation
systems.
The DDOE will work collaboratively with the LEA/school to examine the findings of the needs
assessment and provide support in the development of an appropriate and actionable
improvement plan. Additional data analyses (quantitative data described above) will be used to
identify which of the previous interventions should or should not be continued and to determine if
other evidence-based strategies are needed.
Based on comprehensive needs analysis, including the qualitative needs analyses, an LEA will be
required to amend its comprehensive support and improvement plan to:
1. Address the reasons the school did not meet the exit criteria, including whether the school
implemented the interventions with fidelity and sufficient intensity, and the results of the new
needs assessment.
2. Update how the LEA will continue to address previously identified resource inequities and
identify any new resource inequities consistent with the requirements to review those
inequities in its original plan.
3. Include the implementation of additional evidence-based interventions in the school that are
identified by an external LEA needs assessment and that are more rigorous and based on
strong or moderate levels of evidence.
The DDOE will provide support and guidance to the LEA for providing operational and financial
flexibility for schools identified for improvement.
Note: Determining what constitutes a “more rigorous intervention” will depend in part on what
interventions the school previously implemented, the effectiveness of implementation, and other
factors that did not lead to improved outcomes. This will take a concerted effort between DDOE
and the LEA to examine programs, systems, strategies, and financial alignments that were
contributing factors to the lack of improved outcomes. The determination of a “more rigorous
intervention” will be made on a school-by-school basis. Interventions will be aligned to the
school’s needs assessments and the indicator areas for which the schools were identified.
See previous section 4.2.A.ii in which the exit criteria for CSI is described. The process outlined
in this section will be considered as part of the “more rigorous intervention” strategy.
D. Periodic Resource Review. Describe how the SEA will periodically review, identify, and, to the
extent practicable, address any identified inequities in resources to ensure sufficient support for
school improvement in each LEA in the State serving a significant number or percentage of
schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement consistent with the
requirements in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. § 200.23(a).
65
March 13, 2017 Revised Template Question
A.4.viii.d. Resource Allocation Review. Describe how the State will periodically review
resource allocation to support school improvement in each LEA in the State serving a
significant number or percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted
support and improvement.
ESSA requires states to review resource allocation between LEAs and between schools for those
LEAs with a significant number of schools identified as TSI or CSI. A review of resource
allocation must include a review of LEA- and school-level resources, among and within schools,
including:
Disproportionate rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers identified by the
state and LEA consistent with sections 1111(g)(1)(B) and 1112(b)(2) of the Act; and
Per-pupil expenditures of federal, state, and local funds required to be reported annually
consistent with section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x) of the Act.
Also including, at the school’s discretion, a review of LEA- and school-level budgeting and
resource allocation with respect to resources described above and the availability and access to
any other resource provided by the LEA or school, such as advanced coursework, preschool
programs and instructional materials, and technology.
As mentioned earlier in section 4.2 regarding identification for CSI and TSI, LEAs will conduct a
needs assessment to assist schools in developing appropriate improvement plans using evidence-
based strategies. However, at the beginning of each four-year improvement cycle, those LEAs
determined to have a significant number of schools identified for school improvement will work
in collaboration with the DDOE to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment to identify any
resource inequities. LEA size varies across the state of Delaware, and, therefore, a “significant
number” of schools will depend on the total number of schools in the LEA. The DDOE will
work in cooperation with the LEAs to determine what a significant number means on a case-by-
case basis. For example, in a district with only four schools, a significant number may be one
school, whereas in a district with ten or more schools, a significant number may be more than
two.
Staff members across DDOE branches and workgroups will work in collaboration with the LEAs
to assess resource inequities and provide support for improvement plan development and
implementation. Internal collaboration and coordination across the various branches and
workgroups will allow the DDOE to more efficiently and effectively support and monitor LEA
school improvement planning and implementation. In that regard, ongoing assessment of
potential resource inequities will be included as part of the regular monitoring that the DDOE
already conducts for federal and state programs. By including this ongoing assessment and
feedback as part of required monitoring, the DDOE will be efficient in supporting LEAs.